| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Updatable views |
| Date: | 2006-09-01 18:26:28 |
| Message-ID: | B8C0BF3F20C4EC5B8C9771AB@[172.26.14.247] |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On Freitag, September 01, 2006 11:34:49 -0400 Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't understand this part very well. Say if you have a view WITH
> CHECK OPTION whose condition is "foo > 5", and then define a view WITH
> LOCAL CHECK OPTION on top of that, whose condition is "bar > 5". Does
> the local check option on the second view that I can insert a row with
> foo=4, bar=6? That doesn't violate the condition of bar > 5, so it
> seems fine to me. But it also seems quite idiotic because it violated
> the original foo>5 condition.
That's exactly what i'm reading out there, too. If such a view definition
is useful or not
depends on its use case. Correct me if i'm wrong....
--
Thanks
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-09-01 18:41:24 | Re: Thought provoking piece on NetBSD |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2006-09-01 18:20:32 | Re: [PATCHES] Updatable views |